Slate's James Suroweicki has an interesting article about the whole free-market experiment in counter-terror intelligence. He details some of the market's successes as a predicive tool and argues that in this case it has been unfairly dismissed. I'm incline to agree - when I first heard about the project (in the context of calls for its dismantling) it sounded like it had some promise as a legitimate indicator. This is, after all, an area where markets excel, and there's every reaqson to think the project would have led to a more precise risk assessment by the Pentagon. I certainly would place more stock in it (forgive the expression) than I do in the yellow alert flashing across my FOX News ticker.
Of course, I sympathize with those who think it would be unseemly to have people profit from an attack. But I'm not convinced this isn't happening already - and I also think the issue could be handled more delicately. I reject the proposition (from BigOldGeek, and probably others) that the market would actually help bring about an attack. Making an investment and then perpetrating the relevant attack wouldn't just be incredibly stupid, it would be completely out of character for our fanatical friends.
Post a comment